I got a question, how exactly do we define 'modest'? I oftentimes notice that many people who advocate dressing 'modestly' seem to confuse 'modest' with old-fashioned. Modest is defined by society and the times. The scriptures order us to dress modestly, but never defines modest other than headcoverings. That is because modesty changes from time to time. We should dress modest in the sense of modesty that our culture determines, not goin by the standard of modesty that people of a particular area might have had in the past. In fact, doing the latter might even be a bad thing, because the foreign type of apparel could draw attention to yourself and thus distract the people around you from worship.

I got a question, how exactly do we define 'modest'? I oftentimes notice that many people who advocate dressing 'modestly' seem to confuse 'modest' with old-fashioned. Modest is defined by society and the times. The scriptures order us to dress modestly, but never defines modest other than headcoverings. That is because modesty changes from time to time. We should dress modest in the sense of modesty that our culture determines, not goin by the standard of modesty that people of a particular area might have had in the past. In fact, doing the latter might even be a bad thing, because the foreign type of apparel could draw attention to yourself and thus distract the people around you from worship.

You hit the nail on the head there.

Going by the ancient Roman Empire, if we wanted to be "modest", we'd be wearing togas, and pants (even for men) would be taboo.

Don't the Old Believers also dress very "old fashioned" similarly to the Amish in the U.S.? That is just weird.

Who are you to say "most laypeople in the Orthodox Church do not follow the Scriptures"?

Who do you think you are?

Would you please quote me where I said that?I thought the word I said was "many".

Now from my example, WHERE am I wrong? Are the women covering their heads?Read 1 Corinthians 11.

Are they dressed modestly? NOT entirely.

Even icons of the Theotokos and Female Saints they are dressed modestly & their heads covered.

This isn't an argument. This is me getting vented on.

I am a human being capable of logic. They are not following the scriptures in that example.

In the OCA I witnessed at least 70% of the church dressed this way. It is not part of the commands of the scriptures.

In ROCOR, it was much more following the scriptures.

Please do not plug words into my fingers.

You're an idiot if you think those are important parts of the faith. In fact, you are just like many Old Believers, you are absolutely idolizing small-t "traditions" and putting them up to the level of theology and doctrine.

Who CARES if women don't cover their heads, who cares if we cross ourselves with three fingers? It doesn't matter!

I guess you believe the scriptures are small t then. Because covering, modesty, and non-costly array are all in the scriptures AND in the TRADITION of the Eastern Orthodox church. MODERN Orthodoxy (post 1940) has a lot of this, as well as ecumenism.

Crossing yourself two or three is a different fight. It matters to the Old believers.

Well, I'm glad I'm not an idiot by that definition, because I don't believe its the most important part of faith. It is important, but not the most. Living by the commands of the scriptures as best as you can is important, but not the MOST.

The difference is a hard truth - most lay people of the EO church do not follow the scriptures, and go ahead and wear costly array - even to church. Many women in EO do not practice covering their heads during prayer either. (many DO, many don't).

Yes, I can quote you where you said that.

What is it with your obsession with women, prudishness and clothing? If a parish has a dress code, let the ushers and administrators worry about it. Let them publish a letter or put a sign about it in the lobby. It is not your business to get in everyone's face and tell them what to do. It's a sin to judge.

Who are you to say "most laypeople in the Orthodox Church do not follow the Scriptures"?

Who do you think you are?

Would you please quote me where I said that?I thought the word I said was "many".

Now from my example, WHERE am I wrong? Are the women covering their heads?Read 1 Corinthians 11.

Are they dressed modestly? NOT entirely.

Even icons of the Theotokos and Female Saints they are dressed modestly & their heads covered.

This isn't an argument. This is me getting vented on.

I am a human being capable of logic. They are not following the scriptures in that example.

In the OCA I witnessed at least 70% of the church dressed this way. It is not part of the commands of the scriptures.

In ROCOR, it was much more following the scriptures.

Please do not plug words into my fingers.

You're an idiot if you think those are important parts of the faith. In fact, you are just like many Old Believers, you are absolutely idolizing small-t "traditions" and putting them up to the level of theology and doctrine.

Who CARES if women don't cover their heads, who cares if we cross ourselves with three fingers? It doesn't matter!

I guess you believe the scriptures are small t then. Because covering, modesty, and non-costly array are all in the scriptures AND in the TRADITION of the Eastern Orthodox church. MODERN Orthodoxy (post 1940) has a lot of this, as well as ecumenism.

Crossing yourself two or three is a different fight. It matters to the Old believers.

Well, I'm glad I'm not an idiot by that definition, because I don't believe its the most important part of faith. It is important, but not the most. Living by the commands of the scriptures as best as you can is important, but not the MOST.

You're virtually a Protestant in your view of the Scriptures. Protestants are heretics. Protestants are nothing like the Early Christians. That includes the heretical Anabaptists.

You're an idiot if you think those are important parts of the faith. In fact, you are just like many Old Believers, you are absolutely idolizing small-t "traditions" and putting them up to the level of theology and doctrine.

Hey hey now stop the name-calling. While I may disagree with some of his theology, I wouldn't insult the man personally. He's a good guy, works hard, takes care of his family. Don't insult the man personally, that's a lowblow move. Anyway, playing Devil's advocate, that popular distinction between 'small-t' and 'big T' tradition doesn't really authoritively exist as far as I know in the Church's official doctrine, it is just a common phrase among the American Orthodox that is used to minimalize the importance of external things so that Protestant converts don't get overwhelmed.

Quote

Who CARES if women don't cover their heads, who cares if we cross ourselves with three fingers? It doesn't matter!

I don't care, but I wouldn't say it doesn't matter. I also don't care about the Calendar controversy and find it very stupid, but I wouldn't say it doesn't matter.

I got a question, how exactly do we define 'modest'? I oftentimes notice that many people who advocate dressing 'modestly' seem to confuse 'modest' with old-fashioned. Modest is defined by society and the times. The scriptures order us to dress modestly, but never defines modest other than headcoverings. That is because modesty changes from time to time. We should dress modest in the sense of modesty that our culture determines, not goin by the standard of modesty that people of a particular area might have had in the past. In fact, doing the latter might even be a bad thing, because the foreign type of apparel could draw attention to yourself and thus distract the people around you from worship.

You hit the nail on the head there.

Going by the ancient Roman Empire, if we wanted to be "modest", we'd be wearing togas, and pants (even for men) would be taboo.

Don't the Old Believers also dress very "old fashioned" similarly to the Amish in the U.S.? That is just weird.

88Devin, modesty can be defined by the early Christians, not by the pagan Romans. The early Christians were the ones against costly array, dressing modestly, and women covering. Even the EO icons depict women & men this way.

It's not about old fashioned. It's about plain. It's about not dressing "worldly" (since the scriptures command us not to be of this world). Old believers practice this, as do Amish.

A guy with some Orthodox backgrounds abandon his faith in favor of some Amish Protestantism. In many threads he writes he is an iconoclast, judaiser, does not believe in Jesus prayer, authority of the clergy etc. He also has outdated views on clothing and family models.

That's understandable and OK.

What is not understandable it's that he keeps saying what is Orthodox and what is not. According to him, the Orthodox things are: headscarves, calendars and antiecumenism. Funnily, icon veneration is not.

And here goes the most funny part:

He watches a documentary about a religious group he never was in contact before and that exists dozens of thousands of kms far from him. He immediately decides they are perfectly Orthodox and plans to join them after watching the film. He also products some arguments for their Orthodoxy and Apostolic succession and whatever.

After he is explained the group captured in the film has no priests he answers there are groups that dress similarly but have priests. That makes think that the most important factors of deciding whether a group is Orthodox or not are (in order of seniority): beards, funny clothes, old calendar, and antiecumenism.

I'm interested in 3 things:

- How will he unite his own iconoclasm and their iconodulism?- How will he react if he meets them in real life and notices not all of them are medieval cosplayers?- How will he react when he realises how they call Jesus in their language and not with some "Jeshua" name?

I got a question, how exactly do we define 'modest'? I oftentimes notice that many people who advocate dressing 'modestly' seem to confuse 'modest' with old-fashioned. Modest is defined by society and the times. The scriptures order us to dress modestly, but never defines modest other than headcoverings. That is because modesty changes from time to time. We should dress modest in the sense of modesty that our culture determines, not goin by the standard of modesty that people of a particular area might have had in the past. In fact, doing the latter might even be a bad thing, because the foreign type of apparel could draw attention to yourself and thus distract the people around you from worship.

You hit the nail on the head there.

Going by the ancient Roman Empire, if we wanted to be "modest", we'd be wearing togas, and pants (even for men) would be taboo.

Don't the Old Believers also dress very "old fashioned" similarly to the Amish in the U.S.? That is just weird.

88Devin, modesty can be defined by the early Christians, not by the pagan Romans. The early Christians were the ones against costly array, dressing modestly, and women covering. Even the EO icons depict women & men this way.

It's not about old fashioned. It's about plain. It's about not dressing "worldly" (since the scriptures command us not to be of this world). Old believers practice this, as do Amish.

Where the hell do you think you've got the right to judge the pure and undefiled Church of Christ?

No, it isn't about plain, again, you are putting your personal, Protestant-esque interpretation of the Bible onto the Early Christians. The Early Christians were neither Protestants, nor Amish, nor Old Believers.

Of course, I'm sure you believe St. Constantine is a bane on Christianity and led to the "great apostasy"...

A guy with some Orthodox backgrounds abandon his faith in favor of some Amish Protestantism. In many threads he writes he is an iconoclast, judaiser, does not believe in Jesus prayer, authority of the clergy etc. He also has outdated views on clothing and family models.

That's understandable and OK.

What is not understandable it's that he keeps saying what is Orthodox and what is not. According to him, the Orthodox things are: headscarves, calendars and antiecumenism. Funnily, icon veneration is not.

And here goes the most funny part:

He watches a documentary about a religious group he never was in contact before and that exists dozens of thousands of kms far from him. He immediately decides they are perfectly Orthodox and plans to join them after watching the film. He also products some arguments for their Orthodoxy and Apostolic succession and whatever.

After he is explained the group captured in the film has no priests he answers there are groups that dress similarly but have priests. That makes think that the most important factors of deciding whether a group is Orthodox or not are (in order of seniority): beards, funny clothes, old calendar, and antiecumenism.

I'm interested in two things:

- How will he unite his own iconoclasm and their iconodulism?- How will he react if he meets them in real life and notices not all of them are medieval cosplayers?- How will he react when he realises they do call Jesus in their language and not with some "Jeshua" name?

Well put.

And by the way, your English it becoming ridiculously good.

Logged

If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

Plain doesn't equal old fashioned. In fact, I imagine that going through the trouble to dress old-fashionedly like the 'early Christians' would probably be more costly and lead to a great deal more trouble for both you and those around you than it would be to dress 'plain' and 'modestly' by our modern society's standards.

You're virtually a Protestant in your view of the Scriptures. Protestants are heretics. Protestants are nothing like the Early Christians. That includes the heretical Anabaptists.

I don't agree, and neither do many Eastern Orthodox Christians. Nor do those who are pictured in icons who are dressed exactly as the scriptures say to. Nor do the Eastern Orthodox Nuns or Monks.

These Russian Orthodox Christians seem to be following the scriptures.

I'm not against you Devin, nor am I against the Orthodox Church. There are ones who follow the scriptures those who don't. Those who follow the canon, those who don't (ecumenism( and WORSHIPING with the non-Orthodox is against the Canon of the Holy Apostles - PLAIN & CLEAR))

There are many EO Christians who really do a wonderful job in this. I would find HOTCA a wonderful example of a "modern" Orthodox church who adheres to the Canon & Scriptures. (from what I've seen)

Old believers from what I can tell, have a wonderful adherence as well.

You're virtually a Protestant in your view of the Scriptures. Protestants are heretics. Protestants are nothing like the Early Christians. That includes the heretical Anabaptists.

I don't agree, and neither do many Eastern Orthodox Christians. Nor do those who are pictured in icons who are dressed exactly as the scriptures say to. Nor do the Eastern Orthodox Nuns or Monks.

These Russian Orthodox Christians seem to be following the scriptures.

I'm not against you Devin, nor am I against the Orthodox Church. There are ones who follow the scriptures those who don't. Those who follow the canon, those who don't (ecumenism( and WORSHIPING with the non-Orthodox is against the Canon of the Holy Apostles - PLAIN & CLEAR))

There are many EO Christians who really do a wonderful job in this. I would find HOTCA a wonderful example of a "modern" Orthodox church who adheres to the Canon & Scriptures. (from what I've seen)

Old believers from what I can tell, have a wonderful adherence as well.

You're so weird, and stupid, and wrong.

Why the hell don't you go become a heretical Protestant?

You're not Orthodox, and it doesn't matter if you once were and it doesn't matter how long you were. You aren't Orthodox and therefore you cannot say what Orthodoxy is and is not. You've lost that right.

Notice the only thing to which he refers as 'following the Scriptures' relates to women and head-coverings?

Would he have turned up his nose at St. Mary of Egypt?

I also love how he ignores the clothing of all the Priests, Bishops and Civil Authorities in Icons. Or how he ignores the clothing of many others in iconography which isn't simple.

If he thinks the clothing shown on men like St. Paul, St. Peter, the Theotokos and others was "plain" for their day, he obviously knows nothing about history. They are displayed in clothing which would have been pretty "rich" for their day.

Only direct instructions for how to dress 'modestly' in the Scriptures is headcoverings and not dressing costly. I don't really see how wearing a headcovering and not dressing costly automatically translates to dressing like someone out of Little House on the Prairie. You can follow these direct instructions and then dress modestly by society's standard.

You're virtually a Protestant in your view of the Scriptures. Protestants are heretics. Protestants are nothing like the Early Christians. That includes the heretical Anabaptists.

I don't agree, and neither do many Eastern Orthodox Christians. Nor do those who are pictured in icons who are dressed exactly as the scriptures say to. Nor do the Eastern Orthodox Nuns or Monks.

These Russian Orthodox Christians seem to be following the scriptures.

I'm not against you Devin, nor am I against the Orthodox Church. There are ones who follow the scriptures those who don't. Those who follow the canon, those who don't (ecumenism( and WORSHIPING with the non-Orthodox is against the Canon of the Holy Apostles - PLAIN & CLEAR))

There are many EO Christians who really do a wonderful job in this. I would find HOTCA a wonderful example of a "modern" Orthodox church who adheres to the Canon & Scriptures. (from what I've seen)

Old believers from what I can tell, have a wonderful adherence as well.

You're so weird, and stupid, and wrong.

Why the hell don't you go become a heretical Protestant?

You're not Orthodox, and it doesn't matter if you once were and it doesn't matter how long you were. You aren't Orthodox and therefore you cannot say what Orthodoxy is and is not. You've lost that right.

You're virtually a Protestant in your view of the Scriptures. Protestants are heretics. Protestants are nothing like the Early Christians. That includes the heretical Anabaptists.

I don't agree, and neither do many Eastern Orthodox Christians. Nor do those who are pictured in icons who are dressed exactly as the scriptures say to. Nor do the Eastern Orthodox Nuns or Monks.

These Russian Orthodox Christians seem to be following the scriptures.

I'm not against you Devin, nor am I against the Orthodox Church. There are ones who follow the scriptures those who don't. Those who follow the canon, those who don't (ecumenism( and WORSHIPING with the non-Orthodox is against the Canon of the Holy Apostles - PLAIN & CLEAR))

There are many EO Christians who really do a wonderful job in this. I would find HOTCA a wonderful example of a "modern" Orthodox church who adheres to the Canon & Scriptures. (from what I've seen)

Old believers from what I can tell, have a wonderful adherence as well.

You're so weird, and stupid, and wrong.

Why the hell don't you go become a heretical Protestant?

You're not Orthodox, and it doesn't matter if you once were and it doesn't matter how long you were. You aren't Orthodox and therefore you cannot say what Orthodoxy is and is not. You've lost that right.

A guy with some Orthodox backgrounds abandon his faith in favor of some Amish Protestantism. In many threads he writes he is an iconoclast, judaiser, does not believe in Jesus prayer, authority of the clergy etc. He also has outdated views on clothing and family models.

That's understandable and OK.

What is not understandable it's that he keeps saying what is Orthodox and what is not. According to him, the Orthodox things are: headscarves, calendars and antiecumenism. Funnily, icon veneration is not.

And here goes the most funny part:

He watches a documentary about a religious group he never was in contact before and that exists dozens of thousands of kms far from him. He immediately decides they are perfectly Orthodox and plans to join them after watching the film. He also products some arguments for their Orthodoxy and Apostolic succession and whatever.

After he is explained the group captured in the film has no priests he answers there are groups that dress similarly but have priests. That makes think that the most important factors of deciding whether a group is Orthodox or not are (in order of seniority): beards, funny clothes, old calendar, and antiecumenism.

I'm interested in 3 things:

- How will he unite his own iconoclasm and their iconodulism?- How will he react if he meets them in real life and notices not all of them are medieval cosplayers?- How will he react when he realises how they call Jesus in their language and not with some "Jeshua" name?

Finally somebody formalizes the Paradox.

How do you worship in communion with Bishops who engage in ecumensim?

How can you receive communion from the Orthodox in violation of that Canon of the Holy Apostles?(clergy worshiping with non-Orthodox calls for deposing & excommunicating via Canon of Holy Apostles)

How do you venerate that which GOD has forbidden man to create?

So as much as I may be confused, perhaps there are no answers.

Sorry guys, I don't just get spoon fed something and go with it. I don't care who you are, you know some of the stuff I post has rough points, or else it would not arouse such hostile responses.

yes I have problems with icons. Read the 10 commandments.yes I love the Orthodox worship & prayers in many ways.yes I believe we should not call priests "father" bishops "master", because God told us not to.yes I believe above all ecumenism is the greatest of all heresy.yes I like how the old believers and Amish adhere more to the scriptures in their daily lives.

So rather than trying to rip apart my "confusion", perhaps if somebody would like to answer one simple question without hostility.

IF your bishop engages in WORSHIP with non-Orthodox that violates the Canons of the Holy Apostles, which calls for them to be defrocked and deposed - then HOW can you justify being with that bishop?

Can you really blame me for being confused?

Perhaps I'm just a person brave enough to walk away to re-analyze "what in the world" is going on.

Only direct instructions for how to dress 'modestly' in the Scriptures is headcoverings and not dressing costly. I don't really see how wearing a headcovering and not dressing costly automatically translates to dressing like someone out of Little House on the Prairie. You can follow these direct instructions and then dress modestly by society's standard.

This is true. Often home-made clothing does appear this way. Also its about not being in competition with fellow church goers (this is an Amish practice). Somebody doesn't wear "loud" colors to stand out.

I don't fully agree with the Anabaptists, I just want to make this point.

A guy with some Orthodox backgrounds abandon his faith in favor of some Amish Protestantism. In many threads he writes he is an iconoclast, judaiser, does not believe in Jesus prayer, authority of the clergy etc. He also has outdated views on clothing and family models.

That's understandable and OK.

What is not understandable it's that he keeps saying what is Orthodox and what is not. According to him, the Orthodox things are: headscarves, calendars and antiecumenism. Funnily, icon veneration is not.

And here goes the most funny part:

He watches a documentary about a religious group he never was in contact before and that exists dozens of thousands of kms far from him. He immediately decides they are perfectly Orthodox and plans to join them after watching the film. He also products some arguments for their Orthodoxy and Apostolic succession and whatever.

After he is explained the group captured in the film has no priests he answers there are groups that dress similarly but have priests. That makes think that the most important factors of deciding whether a group is Orthodox or not are (in order of seniority): beards, funny clothes, old calendar, and antiecumenism.

I'm interested in 3 things:

- How will he unite his own iconoclasm and their iconodulism?- How will he react if he meets them in real life and notices not all of them are medieval cosplayers?- How will he react when he realises how they call Jesus in their language and not with some "Jeshua" name?

Finally somebody formalizes the Paradox.

How do you worship in communion with Bishops who engage in ecumensim?

How can you receive communion from the Orthodox in violation of that Canon of the Holy Apostles?(clergy worshiping with non-Orthodox calls for deposing & excommunicating via Canon of Holy Apostles)

How do you venerate that which GOD has forbidden man to create?

So as much as I may be confused, perhaps there are no answers.

Sorry guys, I don't just get spoon fed something and go with it. I don't care who you are, you know some of the stuff I post has rough points, or else it would not arouse such hostile responses.

yes I have problems with icons. Read the 10 commandments.yes I love the Orthodox worship & prayers in many ways.yes I believe we should not call priests "father" bishops "master", because God told us not to.yes I believe above all ecumenism is the greatest of all heresy.yes I like how the old believers and Amish adhere more to the scriptures in their daily lives.

So rather than trying to rip apart my "confusion", perhaps if somebody would like to answer one simple question without hostility.

IF your bishop engages in WORSHIP with non-Orthodox that violates the Canons of the Holy Apostles, which calls for them to be defrocked and deposed - then HOW can you justify being with that bishop?

Can you really blame me for being confused?

Perhaps I'm just a person brave enough to walk away to re-analyze "what in the world" is going on.

So, essentially what you advocate on this forum is NOT Orthodoxy; rather, it's yeshuaisiamodoxy.